The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/debris-damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. FEMA (2002). “World Trade Center Building Performance Study,” released May 2002, available at: http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm

The 9-11 Commission report does not even mention the collapse of WTC 7 on 9-11-01.

The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, Authorized Edition, New York: W.W. Norton.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile. All of this reporting about hijacking was about traditional hijacking. You take a plane -- people were worried they might blow one up, but they were mostly worried that they might try to take a plane and use it for release of the blind Sheikh or some of their own people."
...

And this was an analytic piece that tried to bring together several threads -- in 1997, they talked about this; in 1998, they talked about that; it's been known that maybe they want to try and release the blind Sheikh -- I mean, that was the character of it.

1995- A plan by al-Qaeda operatives (including Khalid Shaikh Mahammed and Ramsi Yousef) involved in the 1993 attack on the WTC buildings
(another inside job: http://www.physics911.ca/Schoenman:...Trade_Center%3Fhttp://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur46.htm )
was discovered on computer disks, involving using commercial airplanes in terrorist attacks and including plans to attack the WTC buildings and the Pentagon, was discovered by U.S. and Philippine intelligence agents resulting in conviction and jailing of Yousef and others. Its code name was Project Bojinka and the plan and 9/11 was carried out exactly 5 years after Yousef was convicted on Sept 11, 1996, at such time Yousef again discussed plans for carrying out Project Bojinka.http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...te_911_timeline

But: Condoliezza at least once tell the truth, embedded in all her lies:

They know all along that there were hijackers in the US, who'll try to release the blind sheik.
At least since 1995. But they didn't do something about it to stop them. In fact, they protect the patsies from beeing discover with various methods. They stop all FBI investigations, they remove all people who could stop the imminent false flag op, they silenced the ones who could talk:

In his book, Against All Enemies, Richard A. Clarke, former special advisor to the National Security Council, mentioned Cheney's attendance at the principals meetings.

"In the first weeks of the Administration, however, Cheney had heard me loud and clear about al-Qaida," Clarke wrote. "Now that he was attending the NSC Principals meetings chaired by Condi Rice (something no Vice President had ever done), I hoped he would speak up about the urgency of the problem, put it on a short list for immediate action. He didn't."Clarke was taken off the principals committee by Rice in Bush's first year before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/E...isers_0502.html

How much more proof does one need?

And now, please look at the statement from Mossaoui in his trial, page 28, line 7 and following.

Please don't forget that he has never plead guilty of any involvement in 911, his life long punishment is solely founded on this testimony, that he was in the US for with conspiratorial intentions to hijack a plane and release the blind sheik, as stated as following:

There he stated: "I ask the government to point out to me a single paragraph where they say I'm specificially guilty of 911...because the government had said that there is a broader conspiracy to use airplane as weapon of mass destruction. If that's absolutely correct, that I came to the United States of America to be part, okay, of a conspiracy to use airplane as a weapon of mass destruction, I was being trained on the 747 400 to eventually use this plane as stated in thisstatement of fact to strike the White House, but this conspiracywas a different conspiracy that 9/11.

My conspiracy has for aim to free Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh, who is held in Florence, Colorado, okay, and we wanted to use the 747 because it, it is a long-distance plane who could reach Afghanistan without any stopover to give a chance to special forces to storm the plane.So I am guilty of a broad conspiracy to use weapon of mass destruction to hit the White House if the American government refuse to negotiate, okay."

I'm aware he plead guilty one month ago or so, to be involved in a 911 conspiracy, but his statements are just absurd and he probably wore a Stun belt.
Besides that, with no doubt, he is mentally ill, like the so called Shoe bomber Reid. And like alleged number 5 of Al Quida, Luai Sakra.http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_C...wtopic=1307&hl=

Another hint, they all are mentally ill, just fitting for CIA moles and patsies!

Why is there no public debate concerning the issue of 'peak Oil', in particular when 'Peak Oil' helps explain why the American government is establishing bases in the Caucusus (the largest untapped petroleum reserves in the world) and why they were planning a war over a petroleum pipe line through AFghanistan in the months prior to 911, and why they are now in Iraq?

One thing to keep in mind here is the fragility of a modern market based economy. Everything is done to maintain 'consumer confidence' with that 'confidence index' being one of the most watched indicators...the current economic system is so fragile that it literally needs to commit suicide tommorrow in order to keep the cycle of consumption of products going today...the world is thus locked into a vicious circle...

another good example of the same sort of thing is the interest of the airline industries and so called 'intelligence failures' of 9-11. One good example of this sort of thing appeared on the WSWS site titled 'Cover up and conspriracy of 9-11' where we read...

The Bush administration has been plunged into a major political crisis following press reports that Bush was briefed on the danger of a terrorist attack involving the hijacking of US airliners more than a month before September 11. Despite the warning, delivered in an intelligence briefing last August, the White House took no action to forestall the deadliest terrorist action in US history, or to warn the public.

Several senators, Republicans as well as Democrats, said the revelations about advance warnings raised the issue of whether the September 11 attacks could have prevented, saving thousands of lives. Senator John McCain, Arizona Republican and former candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, said, “There were two separate FBI reports plus a CIA warning, none of which were coordinated. The question is, if all three had been connected, would that have led to more vigorous activity?”

If the Bush administration had taken any serious measures to prevent a typical hijacking, those measures would also have stopped the suicide bombers.

But despite the warning delivered August 6, there was no increased security on the part of the airlines. The 19 hijackers boarded planes without hindrance on September 11...

The WSWS article then goes on to note that major military actions have been preceded by deliberate conspiracies and frauds in the past...

Every war waged by the United States over the past century has been accompanied by provocations orchestrated by the US government to stampede public opinion and give a “defensive” cover to military aggression. The pattern is well-established, from the campaign over the explosion of the battleship Maine, which ushered in the US war against Spain in 1898, to the Gulf of Tonkin incident (Vietnam) and the Racak massacre, the pretext for US intervention in Kosovo in 1999.

The 'wait and watch' passive conspiracy theory of 9-11 does explain the facts of what happened, but the weakness of the market economy also explains a lot of these facts equally well. For example you could warn airline passengers of the rising terrorist threat during the summer of 2001, but then some people would stop taking planes, and this would cause a loss of 'copnsumer confidence' in the airline industry, and to lost profits ... and so the pressure would be on to cover up, to ignore an impending disaster...similarly the establishment of strict security could also alarm the public and given the fragility of the modern market economy, could also cause a 'loss of consumer confidence' in flying on airplanes. This simple fact explains the worthless response of the government before 9-11 just as well as the passive conspiracy theory (the 'active conspiracy theory' suggests that 'the Bush administration planted explosives in the twin towers' ... i recommend the Discovery channel program that if I remember right is part of the series Frontiers of Construction that shows all the work involved in demolishing even a small building...for example you have to pound holes in the walls and then use sand bagging and so on so that explosion does not simply disappate into an open space...every charge is connected by miles of cabling since the explosions must be perfectly timed to get the building to properly collapse ... this massive conspiracy is just not credible, especially with about a hundred thousand people in those buildings on a typical day...)(See also the page showing the so called 'conspiracy video tape' which pretty well proves that the conspiracy theory that states that Bush administration blew up the WTC towers is completely false...Bush 9-11 conspiracy video

The beef industry gives us another typical example of a related type of conspiracy involving protecting corporate special interest groups...Consumer confidence was maintained by telling people it was an imported cow, not an American cow...at the same time the effect of the announcement that no more downer cattle would be accepted into the plants effectively ended what little mad cow testing was being done, since only a percentage of the downer cattle were being test for mad cow... the cow that had mad cow was not a downer cow, just an old cow that happened to be mixed in with the downer cows that couldn't walk and thus just happened to get tested for Mad Cow. If it had arrived on a different truck it would not have been tested and would have simply entered the food chain.

Now that 'downer cattle' are banned, since only a percentage of downer cows were previously tested, this effectively means that no mad cow testing is now being done, and so the claim can be made that 'no more cows have been found with mad cow since that one Canadian cow', and this would be true since the ban on downer cattle can actually be interpreted to mean that no more mad cow testing is now being done...so then we can 'see no mad cow, hear about no mad cow, have no mad cow'...the claim can then be made that we 'have the safest cows in the world' although with no mad cow testing being done, the claim means nothing, but at the same time we can be told that it is not required to test the safest cows in the world because we already have the safest cows in the world, so why bother testing...this is the circular argument used by the beef mulitnational special interest groups...in just this way the government and industry together can play Beef Roullette with the public safety, just as the airline industry could play Kamikazi Roullette with the public in the months before 9-11. That all important and ever so fragile 'consumer confidence' could be maintained in both the beef industry and the airline industry, following the mantra which dictates that the good of society overall outweights the risks to a few indvidual members of society. This would include those airline passengers who would have died on 9-11, in order to protect the greater social good by not causing a downturn in the airline industry, as well as those members of the public who ate that Washington mad cow (which despite denials, was mixed in with weiners and hamburger and then shipped all over California, and then was sold, not 'recalled', since it was already to late a month later when that test was finally completed which confirmed mad cow...that false claim that the mad cow was not sold to people was one of those required lies which are required if 'consumer confidence' in beef is to be maintained for 'the greater public good'.

Similarly it would not do to inform the public about 'Peak Oil' since this is a problem of such magnitude that it affects 'consumer confidence' across the entire spectrum of a market based economy. It is vitally important to feed the population a constant diet of upbeat good news about the economy, so that people will continue to make those all important spending decisions based upon a rosy scenario of their future prospects, and not begin to scale back, or even worse, start hoarding. Even a relatively small collapse in 'consumer confidence' could have a dominoe effect, with lower sales leading to unemployment, leading to even lower sales, and so on...for this reason there is a lot of bad news that must be kept from the consumer, and over all, it would be better to keep consumers 'brain dead', if that were at all possible...it is important for the 'consumer' to see such President's as Bush expressing 'confidence' in the face of the threat of global warming and climate change, and the fact that the 'leader of the wolf pack' shows confidence in rejecting such things as Kyoto is enough to spread more of that 'confidence' throughout the pack of consumers, which is why politicians ignore science and instead plunge recklessly ahead. After all, scientists don't have the problem of keeping a fragile economic ship afloat...politicians have that job, and that explains so much of the rotten conduct of the modern day politician.

The behavior of politicians, even at its seemingly strangest and most imcomprehensible, can often be understood if we reframe their actions and begin to think of 'consumer confidence'...consumer confidence will be protected, whether it is protected by not testing for mad cow, thus making sure not to find any more after that last one was found, or whether it is by letting airline passengers go gambling and then do a Kamikazi into two office towers, or whether it is ditching Kyoto, and then gambling on climate change, or refusing to discuss 'Peak Oil', while at the same time occupying the world's last remaining large oil and gas reserves (the Caucasus nations, occupied during the Afghan war) or invading Iraq (estimated reserves of around 100 billion barrels, or between 2 and 3 trillion dollars, depending on oil prices)...in all these cases 'consumer confidence' is protected, placing the short term interests of society ahead of long term interests, in order to keep a very fragile economic system operating and surviving for another day.

The current economic system is so very fragile for the very reason that it is built upon an irrational foundation, represented by the mathematical impossibility of 'endless growth', this growth supposedly leading to 'a higher standard of living'. Lawn mowers and gadgets must be produced eternally, and more and more of them must be sold to 'consumers', and, in order to satisfy the demands of the 'market', each year there must be a growth in the numbers of gadgets sold, this growth figure being another one of the key indicators watched closely. This pattern of consumption, propped up by rosy scenarios and hidden dangers, is the home of consumers kept in the dark and fed lots of bullshit, a behavior pattern which must continue up to the potentially bitter end, or in the hope that perhaps someone might think of something before then that will allow our politicians to pull a rabbit out of a hat at the last minute, thus preserving that all important 'consumer confidence' in the interim.

In the meantime there is much that must be done secretly, as people in high places work quietly on that rabbit trick (so as not to alarm the consumer)...so for example we find the American government occupying the Caucusus region, with all that remaining untapped petroleum, and invading Iraq, while talking about WMD in the case of Iraq, and the 'Al Queda threat' in the case of the Caucusus, because that is deemed safer than talking about the coming 'end of oil', which would explain why we need to be invading the big oil producing regions of the world at this particular point in history.

This would all be true whether or not a Democrat or Republican was in office, since the behavior of politicians in a 'free market economy' is driven by an inescapable logic which goes beyond partisan causes or superficial political affiliation (which is why 'Labor party' means nothing today, and Blair, from 'Labor' is an ally of the right wing in America). One might recall that the Pentagon was rehearsing what to do if a passenger airline was used as a flying bomb to attack the Pentagon building, and this was back in 1999, during the Clinton Administration, and the first bits of 'flying bomb' intelligence goes back to 1995, once again during the Clinton Administration. Any 'explanation' for the 'failures of 9-11' needs to be an explanation which is 'bi-partison'. This may be hard for the partisan die hard Bush haters out there to swallow, in particular all those 'anyone but Bush' types, who think that somehow that really matters (the Bush administration has polarized public opinion like no other in recent times). Bush is not the problem, and given the nature of the current Free Market economic system, and its great concern for corporations, and its drive for constantly increasing levels of consumption, sooner or later a Democrat or Republican, Labor or Liberal, those politicans are all the same, and they will invade Iraq or occupy the Caucusus because they are driven to do so by an irrrestible logic unique to politicians (the difference here is that the Bush administration did the dirty work on the ground, and now the Democrats can play mister clear, while staying in Iraq and the Caucusus, because 'we need to honor our commitments' as they like to say it...keep in mind here that the Clinton administration bombed Iraq on average once every three days for almost a decade, and the Clinton administration went into Yugloslavia, siding with the Muslims, because Yugoslavia is on the edge of the Caucusus, and Muslims live in the Caucusus, and they have that oil which now, thanks to the dirty work of the Bush Republicans, the Democrats can benefit from in the future, while playing mister clean themselves, provided that the 'anyone but Bush' crowd can convince everyone else that changing the Bush administration really makes a hell of a lot of difference. It doesn't.

As well those Democrats can be the big hypocrite by going into a furious frenzy about Ralph Nader, and blaming Nader for the Bush win in 2000, even though those Democrats have already alienated over 50 per cent of the population, who don't even bother to vote for either one of those parties, since they know it doesn't matter. Thus we find the situtation is just pregnant and ripe for a third party, and since Democrats cannot energize the alienated voter, they will have to complain about Nader stealing some of the votes of those people who still bother to vote, and they will have to get angry when some of those people who still vote, but are also alienated by that Democratic party, then jump ship and vote Nader, or vote for some other party somewhere, since they just cannot hold their noses for one more election and vote Democrat anymore. As I said, its just a big hypocrit display by those zealous Democrats, and as for that 'anyone but Bush' baloney, that shows a lack of understanding of how politicians behave and the way the world works, which explains why 'Labor' is now an ally in imperialism with 'Republicans', although, truth be told, Democrats were well on the way towards imperialism themselves, and now get to benefit from Republican imperialism, provided they can get in, and then 'maintain their responsbilities' to those invaded oil countries.

On all the issues that really count there is no difference between a Republican and a Democrat. The fact of the matter is that the Clinton administration did nothing about mad cow, and did nothing to protect air safety, and had a Gore administration come into office they would also have 'allowed 9-11 to happen' because the same powerful motivation to 'protect consumer confidence' by protecting corporate special interest groups, like the beef or airline industries, would act as a powerful motivator to a Democrat no less than a Republican, and would serve as a deterrent to taking effective action, as it did during both the Bush and the Clinton admistrations as history already shows to be the case.

The upside to all this is that politicians can keep secrets, and the population can be kept in the dark, for their own good, so the fragile economic system we have can be maintained, for the over all good, while the downside is that some people are going to wind up plowing into the side of sky scapers when they take the wrong plane on the wrong day, and some people are going to be diagnosed with 'early onset alzheimers' when they eat the occassional mad cow, and a lot of middle and lower class kids are going to be shot up and killed invading oil fields, while their parents are told that the fact that all these wars involve oil pipelines to places like the Caucusus (Afghanistan) or 100 billion barrels of light sweet crude (Iraq) is not the reason their kids are dying. No they are not dying to 'maintain consumer confidence' and no politician will come right out and tell people straight that we need to grab that oil to keep our flimsy economy on life support while secretly someone tries to develop hydrogen. No, people need a better reason to kill and die, or so politicans seem to think, and that is why they are now dangling on the hook because of all that lying, while desperately looking for someone to make into a goat.

The truth about many things must be kept secret while the general public is fed a steady diet of propaganda bullshit. The rain forests will continue to disappear, and in Canada at current rates, resource depletion will take place in about 30 years, species are in danger of a great mass extinction event in the coming times, while the glaciers will continue to melt, leaving millions of mostly poor people in the Andes region without drinking water in about twenty years, with the crisis building in intensity as that date appraoches, peak oil will continue to come nearer, while oil companies sit on patents for alternative energy (a practice which should be illegal since it is obviously unethical), and the only hope the planet has in a situation like this is that secretive politicians can perform that magical trick, by pulling a rabbit out of a hat, while at the same time bullshitting everyone in order to maintain that all important 'consumer confidence' in the meantime.

People like to scapegoat politicians. Certainly there is extraordinary rage directed at the Bush administration, and I have to ask myself lately, whether or not this is really fair (for example here in Canada 80 per cent of the population hopes he will not get re-elected). The big crime of the Bush administration is that this government is naked, and thus embarrassing. Everything they are doing, has already been done in a form of prelude by Democrats, but Democrats are just less naked about going about it, and thus less embarrassing. People just hate it, apparently, when a government like the Bush administration goes ahead and does all that bi-partisan stuff, such as oil wars, and is real clumsy and awkward going about it, just like that ham handed Bush administration. This extraordinary level of anger felt by the public when a politician tries to be bad in a sneaky way, and is not damned good at it, like Bush, is just remarkable, especially since Clinton was just as bad, and the Democrats are just as guilty of everything from mad cow to Iraq bombings to 9-11 unpreparedness as Bush, and yet some people paint a rosy scenario of a golden age under the Democrats, and then go on about how even if the Democrats ran a mule in the next election, it would still be better than Bush. In all this the public is not entirely guiltless since any politician that even remotely threatens 'consumer confidence' will get the turf (recall Bush 1, who got sacked because of a recession).

Connecting the dots...
Even though the theory is a valid one which states that 9-11 was allowed to happen because the Bush administration was protecting corporate special interest groups by 'maintaining consumer cofidence in the airline industry', and even though this is the best 'bi-partisan' explanation for 9-11 (since it also explains the inaction of the Clinton administration, in that blame for 9-11 is best shared among both Democrats and Republicans, as history indicates) even so I do not expect this avenue of investigation to be pursued, and instead expect a focus on 'intelligence failures', or perhaps, as even some liberals suggest, we should examine the 'connect the dots problem'. We need an explanation as to why those dots were 'not connected' even though the evidence was there (and someday we will be asking why the 'climate change dots' were not connected, or the "peak oil' dots were not connected, and so on, since in all these cases the actual root cause of the problem is always the same).

The solution, if this 'dot connecting' theory is adopted to 'explain 9-11' is to impose on the nation a super spy agency ('Total Information Awareness') thus ensuring that those dots never go unconnected again. This 'solution' will not stop a politician in the future from 'protecting consumer confidence' by protecting corporate special interest groups and so tommorrow another disaster of some kind will happen, with the only difference being that the country will be saddled with a new super spy agency they don't need, and all this because truly it could be said that people just could not connect the dots, and thus proposed a solution which was no solution at all, since it targetted the wrong problem...

Following the same line of reasoning I would argue that if we 'connect the dots' we can see that the 'anybody but Bush' line of reasoning is pointless, since once again it doesn't target the right problem, and so at the end of it all you get a Republican. The Americans could vote 'labor' just like they do in Australia or Britain, and wind up with 'Bush Lite' because that's the best you can do these days, especially now that the current world system is reaching the point of inevitable collapse and implosion, given its impossible contradictions and the strain these irrationalities place upon the planet ('eternal growth' being a stupid mathematical notion, in particular on a planet with finite resources).

As for a solution, the time is coming, it must come when we sit down, as a society, and maybe not invite any politicians, you know, just invite people, and begin to seriously discuss just what kind of planet we want this to be in the future. Certainly keeping the planet the way it is now is not an option, and in particular, maintaining any more of that ruthlessly competitive dog eat dog, everyone for themselves fighting for survival which we inherited from a bunch of dead white european males is not going to serve us well over the long term. Besides never before have so many people lived such miserable wretched lives of slavery, while being told they have a 'free market' and all kinds of 'freedoms', while the whole time they are buying lottery tickets by the millions, you know, while nuturing that all to common dream that maybe, just maybe, they might be the lucky one to win that lottery and then finally at long last they can escape from the present world system and a life of being a worker drone which they passionately hate, a privelege reserved only for the rich, or for those worker drones who win the lottery, and thus become rich. Probably never before in human history has a social system existed which has been so passionately hated by so many millions and millions of people, and yet proved to be so damned hard to change. When you add on the fact that this much hated social system, which robs people of any sort of meaningful existence, is also so damned destructive, even suicidal, and that only makes changing the world, and the way people live and they way they think about life and their values, well all this becomes even more important, especially when you consider the alternative. Change they will, and may not be pleasant, but then who knows, perhaps our politicians can continue to pull a rabbit out of hat, which wouldn't be doing the world any big favor by the way, since all they would be doing is forestalling any social change...